Attack on Brantl should not go unpunished

It seems that the state of Pennsylvania has failed to answer the tough questions raised by some of its most promising citizens. While the alleged attack on John Brantl '05 by University of Pennsylvania students last December was shocking, Monday's dropping of all felony charges against the students is equally so. Since the exact details surrounding the court's decision are not available at the time of this writing, I will discuss the two most likely scenarios. The first scenario is that through the "skill" of the lawyers representing the accused, or because a lack of evidence, the state has determined it would not be worth pursuing the charges to competition. The second scenario is that the state has determined that there are better cases to pursue than the prosecution of a bunch of Ivy Leaguers with more alcohol in their systems than common sense. The scenarios are related, and the decision was probably a combination of both. However, the system of justice has failed us all this time, as these cases are exactly the ones that should be taken to trial. The fact that the privileged in America get a different version of justice than that known to the common man is one of the most pressing issues in the nation today, the fallout of which can now be seen through a couple of lucky hooligans whose "good names" are now cleared.

First off, it is important to note that the accused have (obviously) not been convicted by a court of law, and that therefore are not "guilty" of any crime in a purely legal sense. It is equally important to note that the evidence against these students seems overwhelming. Several Princeton students report standing by in horror as the Penn students doused Mr. Brantl with motor oil, beat him, and threatened to light him on fire while flicking a lit cigarette at him. So, in the face of the evidence and obvious severity of the crimes, why would the courts decide to drop the charges? It seems that the desire not to ruin these students' lives overrode whatever crimes they may have committed (at least in the mind of the court). However, this decision reinforces a terrible precedent in our legal system, the fact that the state looks at crimes differently based on who commits them. A crack user can get a mandatory life sentence with the "three strikes" program for hurting no one but himself, yet the wanton torture of a Princeton University student can be dropped entirely. The justice system sends far too many people to prison for crimes they essentially commit against themselves, and pays too little attention to serious crimes such as the Penn torture case. The combination of expensive lawyers and a justice system that does not want to prosecute the successful has led to a double standard that is too harsh on the masses and negligent to the few. The social status and intelligence of these fraternity members almost makes the crime worse, since they were not victims of society or products of unfortunate circumstances. These are just a group of sadistic criminals who thought it would be fun to make someone else think he was going to die.

While it may or may not be just to send these students to prison for what they did, it is entirely wrong to let them off scot-free. They should have to hear their fates being read to them by a jury, and to know the same type of anguish they caused to another. At the very least, a plea bargain should have been reached. As is, there is no admission of guilt of any felony on the part of any of the students, and only misdemeanor charges remain. If the intention of the court was to not prosecute because their conviction might ruin their lives, scaring the students straight is infinitely preferable to giving them the impression that they did nothing wrong. The way it is now, these students will suffer little or no penalty for such an egregious act, since the entire ordeal will be purged from their records with the passage of time. The concern with "ruining people's lives" ignores what the decision will do to Mr. Brantl, and the fact that justice has been served to none. Hopefully, the University of Pennsylvania will restore some sanity to the situation and expel the students involved. The University of Pennsylvania must take a strong stance on the perpetrators, especially if they escape any legal punishment.

The justice system has failed us all in dropping all the serious charges in the Penn torture case. To suggest that someone's status and "bright future" allow us to ignore their obvious crimes flies in the face of American justice, which prides itself on being "blind." Taken to an extreme, this line of thought would excuse corrupt government officials because they are "good for the community," or murderers who contribute to charity. Obviously, this is not the situation we want. The only possible solution is for the University of Pennsylvania to expel these students, and make it clear that there is no excuse for their crimes. Although the legal system refuses to condemn these fortunate sons, society must not let them truly go free.

David Sillers is a politics major from Potomac, Md.